Read the Berne Convention a little more closely. I will wager that you reside in one of the nations that signed onto the treaty. Posting those copyrighted photographs is a clear violation of international copyright law.

It's true that you may have gotten them via Sibe's illegal file sharing service, and not stolen them yourself, but it's your responsibility to remove them.

To the administrators: This article contains photographs copyrighted to the photographers and the likenesses of characters copyrighted to their creators. Please remove them.

Subject: copyright


Hello there

You have used a picture with copyright on your page. I don't have give the permission to use my picture. Please delete it from your page.
Its the 12th picture from above on this page: http://www.crushyiffdestroy.com/show-article.php?file=fs2 (The black bat with the white eyes)

Subject: copyrighted infringement


My name is Mark I. Chester. I am a photographer in San Francisco, CA and I find that you are using a copyrighted image of mine on your website. You do not have permission to use the image. Please remove it immediately.

http://www.crushyiffdestroy.com/show-article.php?file=fs2

I've also included a screen capture with my photo and your comment.

I look forward to your email telling me that the image has been removed and an appropriate apology for appropriating material that you no not have permission to use.

Mark I. Chester

> Blackberry,
>
> Who died and made you Guardian of International Copyright? Seriously, it
> looks a little odd to be coming on like the Internet Police. Also, thanks
> for emailing all those people, you busybody stickybeak! Remember - no
> publicity is bad publicity!
>
> And FYI, at least two of the images are perfectly OK with the persons
> depicted; I'll leave you to discover which.
>
> In the meantime, exactly what action do you propose to take over this
> moving copyright violation? I am all agog and quivering with anticipation!
> Gimme your best shot, big boy!

I just want to make this clear so I can inform your upstream
connection providers: you support any and all illegal activities
carried out by your members, or just selected crimes?

I am merely a concerned party. Too many people have been hurt by this nonsense.

I am at a dead loss as to what might be "an appropriate apology", or what penalties I'll face if my apology is deemed inappropriate.

I recall Shawn Keller did an animation of Blackberry once. It was with his internet-policing and the fursuit he claims to be safe for children.

What a fat retard.

I recall Shawn Keller did an animation of Blackberry once. It was with his internet-policing and the fursuit he claims to be safe for children.

What a fat retard.

I am merely a concerned party. Too many people have been hurt by this nonsense.

That little gem is included along with other Keller animations I've made available for download here :D

That little gem is included along with other Keller animations I've made available for download here :D

I appreciate the effort you made to make these downloadable, but the link you directed us to requires registration.

I am merely a concerned party. Too many people have been hurt by this nonsense.

(because it's really not all that awful in the scheme of things)

That little gem is included along with other Keller animations I've made available for download here :D

I appreciate the effort you made to make these downloadable, but the link you directed us to requires registration.

Shit, they're onto you. Better take those images down before the internet-police take you to internet-jail. Keep the emails a'comin'

You have posted several pictures which are protected under
international copyright according to the Berne Convention. I don't
believe you were given (or asked for) permission to redistribute these
works. Please remove the pictures from your article.

Dear Sir,
No.
Thank you,
(me)

> > Actually, yes. Read the Berne Convention a little more closely. I
>
> Please send me a complete copy of the Berne convention, in triplicate.
> I need one seperate copy for each person here.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html

Article 2 details the works that are covered.
It has been ruled that posting on a web site is a form of Reproduction
(Article 9) and Broadcast (Article 11bis).

> Also, each original "copyright holder" will need to send me proof that
> their works are the ones being violated.

Photographs are automatically copyrighted unless the copyright is
released to you. Do you have documentation that you have permission
to redistribute these copyrighted works?

Hello again!

Thank you for sending me the copies of the Berne Convention. However,
I am currently at a computer without an internet connection. Please
send me the text which is relevant to the discussion at hand,
hilighting the important parts. That's what I meant, I didn't mean the
hotlinks themselves, but I do appreciate you sending them to me.

> Photographs are automatically copyrighted unless the copyright is
> released to you. Do you have documentation that you have permission
> to redistribute these copyrighted works?

I have permission to sing and dance as gaily as I want to, thank you
for asking! Would you like a photo of me standing in front of
anything? It would of course be copyrighted, so you can't share it
with anyone or put it up on any websites. I hate people who do that.

(Me)

(....)
Like many, you believe that because you live in England that you are immune
to copyright laws from artists who live in America. You have to be the
scum of the earth to steal from a low income underground artist and see it
as an act of appreciation. Like most cretins who steal someone else's
work, you hide behind the anonymity of your email address, sticking your
tongue out like a child who is misbehaving. There is no honor in your theft.
(....)

> I asked you to remove the material and you made it clear in your response
> that you were not going to do it. You're the kind of person who steals
> from others, uses their work without their consent and tells anyone who
> might be offended that they should appreciate the free advertising

Yes I am "that" kind of person. I repost gay bondage fursuit photos!
Surely a just and noble society would slay me in a blinding flash of
retribution, for I am an evil, soulless individual who probably
urinates on puppies while making obscene collect calls to the lonely
elderly.. I will cry myself to sleep tonight, knowing that a bald man
in California is angry that I made fun of something he photographed.

> Since you're an American (with a capital *A*), and since you don't take any
> of this seriously, it should be no problem for you to forward me your full

Sorry, I mistyped, I said I'm not taking YOU seriously. I'll send you
my address if you promise to only use it for your christmas card list.
I *am* afraid you are going to sue me in an attempt to get your
dignity back, but since I can barely afford to pay rent, I can't
really help much even if I were legally required to.

> But I know your kind. You won't give me that information because you're a
> coward, the kind of coward who hides behind fake names and free email
> systems and yaps loudly and long, as long as you don't have to take any
> personal responsibility for your actions.

I tweak the brittle from a distance. It's a recent hobby, and one that
I will tire of rather quickly, but hey, it beats sitting here waiting
for the weather to turn nice.

> This is my last warning to remove my work from your article on the web.

OR WHAT, YOU WILL INFECT ME WITH BALD?

I say to you sir, "Hello!"

Didn't these people post these pictures in the open domain publicly without a copyright watermark? On public sites for everyone to google and surf to their merryment?

Here's the kicker...

Didn't these people post these pictures in the open domain publicly without a copyright watermark? On public sites for everyone to google and surf to their merryment?

The knowledge of the items in question being copyrighted material must be made through a notice of some sort, that someone must view. Otherwise... Their "Lawsuite" holds no water.

Winner: CYD.

Once again, though, what are they gonna do? Legally, CYD's pretty much in the clear, but what if these guy's whine to the server? A lot of srevers get freaked out by this sort of thing and fold like a card table even when they don't have to. How cool is our server?

The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. That's important so that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to express your own works -- only the ability to express other people's. Intent, and damage to the commercial value of the work are important considerations. Are you reproducing an article from the New York Times because you needed to in order to criticise the quality of the New York Times, or because you couldn't find time to write your own story, or didn't want your readers to have to register at the New York Times web site? The first is probably fair use, the others probably aren't.

Fair use is usually a short excerpt and almost always attributed. (One should not use more of the work than is necessary to make the commentary.) It should not harm the commercial value of the work -- in the sense of people no longer needing to buy it (which is another reason why reproduction of the entire work is a problem.)

Note that most inclusion of text in Usenet followups is for commentary and reply, and it doesn't damage the commercial value of the original posting (if it has any) and as such it is fair use. Fair use isn't an exact doctrine, either. The court decides if the right to comment overrides the copyright on an individual basis in each case. There have been cases that go beyond the bounds of what I say above, but in general they don't apply to the typical net misclaim of fair use.

U.S. Copyright law is quite explicit that the making of what are called "derivative works" -- works based or derived from another copyrighted work -- is the exclusive province of the owner of the original work. This is true even though the making of these new works is a highly creative process. If you write a story using settings or characters from somebody else's work, you need that author's permission.
Yes, that means almost all "fan fiction" is arguably a copyright violation. If you want to write a story about Jim Kirk and Mr. Spock, you need Paramount's permission, plain and simple. Now, as it turns out, many, but not all holders of popular copyrights turn a blind eye to "fan fiction" or even subtly encourage it because it helps them. Make no mistake, however, that it is entirely up to them whether to do that.

There is a major exception -- criticism and parody. The fair use provision says that if you want to make fun of something like Star Trek, you don't need their permission to include Mr. Spock. This is not a loophole; you can't just take a non-parody and claim it is one on a technicality. The way "fair use" works is you get sued for copyright infringement, and you admit you did copy, but that your copying was a fair use. A subjective judgment on, among other things, your goals, is then made.

However, it's also worth noting that a court has never ruled on this issue, because fan fiction cases always get settled quickly when the defendant is a fan of limited means sued by a powerful publishing company. Some argue that completely non-commercial fan fiction might be declared a fair use if courts get to decide. You can read more

You know what's really funnier than all of the cries of "LAWSUITE" is the fact that this is proof that furries monitor CYD in wait for the chance to descend upon the site for any perceived transgression against their ranks.

As for the age-old copyright gripe, what's really funny is if Subversive's review had been positive, talking about how sexy the suits were and all...

Furries make note.... Rogue the Bat pr0n is not parody if you're doing a spreadshot of her for fapping purposes. Dr. Comet's pin-ups of Krystal from Starfox isn't parody. If Sega or Konami (they do Starfox, right?) wanted to nail yer ass, they could.

A lot of folks recognize that the Web provides opportunities for not only voyeurism, but exhibitionism, too. They upload pictures pretty well knowing there's a chance someone will fap to it, and that gets them off. Not bad as far as sexual liberation goes. But, there's an equal chance someone will find that pic and make fun of it. Those are the risks.

The moral of the story is, if you are taking pictures of stuff you don't want other people to find out about (besides those you intend to share it with), don't post it on the Internet, because - sure as shit - it will find its way to an unintended audience.

But is someone finding it, or it winding up on the front page of somethingawful that big of "risk"? If thats the worst thing that ever happens to some of these people, I get the feeling they are gonna be just fine.

Besides, I know quite a few 'normal' people that have skeletons in thier closets. Its more just that furries tend to be so dysfunctional in all the other ways you wouldn't want to really hang out with them. If the guy in the pig costume was pretty normal, cool guy to hang out with, who would care. I mean I'd never want to see or be reminded of that incident.. but its not like I'd totally shun the person necessarily :)

Oh blah... you guys took the pictures down.
Guess you had to, no? :/
Ahh well.
It was funny while it lasted.

Oh blah... you guys took the pictures down.
Guess you had to, no? :/
Ahh well.
It was funny while it lasted.

Yep, some genius finally realized they'd get farther faster by emailing my host instead of besieging me with emails and IMs and the host drew my attention to their Terms and Conditions and said I had a choice of taking the pix down or they could take the entire site down while they scratched their backsides and figured out what was what.

So... meh. I will say that I never expected this level of furore.

Can't the images simply be changed to links to direct the reader to the picture in question? Alternately, maybe Subversive can track down alternate images he can link to if the ones in question are actually behind some protection like registered user passwords or something. Alternately, the removed images could be replaced with a description of the image.

Still, it is fun knowing this site can be such a fly in their ointment.

I'd say keep the pages here, but the images themselves would be on a third party server. I can provide the hosting for the images, no problem. It would be on a server in Chechoslovakia though

Yep, some genius finally realized they'd get farther faster by emailing my host instead of besieging me with emails and IMs and the host drew my attention to their Terms and Conditions and said I had a choice of taking the pix down or they could take the entire site down while they scratched their backsides and figured out what was what.

I'd say keep the pages here, but the images themselves would be on a third party server. I can provide the hosting for the images, no problem. It would be on a server in Chechoslovakia though :)

The country of Czechoslovakia caused to exist about a decade ago.

I'd say keep the pages here, but the images themselves would be on a third party server. I can provide the hosting for the images, no problem. It would be on a server in Chechoslovakia though

You'd have to check with Mitch, but I think the host doesnt want the images even linked or anything.

Of course, you realize all of our angsting over falling victim to the one real-world skill furries excel at... putting pressure on site hosts... is making them happy.

I'm not sure how much cost Mitch is incuring every month for what they're providing, but you could probably do better.

They're the ones losing it (in both senses of the term); we're here for the entertainment, they're here to monitor everything we do because they're scared to death of what we can bring to bear against them: truth.

You mean "internet skill", don't you? There aren't many people a furry is going to have much dominance or persuasion over in real life, beside other weak-ass furries.